Tag Archives: politics

Open Thread: Happy Independence Day

Read the original:
Open Thread: Happy Independence Day

MSM Wall Protecting Obama Gulf Oil Spill Response Cracks With Latest AP Report

Perhaps it is frustration, as expressed by Anderson Cooper , with the new White House rules inhibiting reports about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill that is now causing a big crack in the Mainstream Media wall which until recently mostly avoided direct criticism of the Obama administration response. However that crack has now turned into a flood of surprising criticism coming from formerly friendly outlets such as the Associated Press. Read this amazing AP report and keep in mind that it is no longer just conservative sources that are harsh in their criticisms of the Obama Gulf oil containment efforts: NEW ORLEANS — BP and the Obama administration face mounting complaints that they are ignoring foreign offers of equipment and making little use of the fishing boats and volunteers available to help clean up what may now be the biggest spill ever in the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard said there have been 107 offers of help from 44 nations, ranging from technical advice to skimmer boats and booms. But many of those offers are weeks old, and only a small number have been accepted. The vast majority are still under review, according to a list kept by the State Department. Ouch! But the criticism of the poor reponse of the Obama administration response to this crises becomes even more heated: A report prepared by investigators with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., detailed one case in which the Dutch government offered April 30 to provide four oil skimmers that collectively could process more than 6 million gallons of oily water a day. It took seven weeks for the U.S. to approve the offer. Even the credibility of the Coast Guard is being called into question: Billy Nungesser, president of Louisiana’s hard-hit Plaquemines Parish, said BP and the Coast Guard provided a map of the exact locations of 140 skimmers that were supposedly cleaning up the oil. But he said that after he repeatedly asked to be flown over the area so he could see them at work, officials told him only 31 skimmers were on the job. Something seems to have shifted dramatically in the past few days in MSM coverage of this crises.  And was this the reason for the “transparent” Obama administration attempting to inhibit coverage of the Gulf oil spill?

See original here:
MSM Wall Protecting Obama Gulf Oil Spill Response Cracks With Latest AP Report

AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

Those looking for evidence that there a move afoot in the establishment press to lower the bar for whatever economic accomplishments might be accomplished during the Obama administration will be interested in how the Associated Press’s report on the government’s June jobs report defined “normal” unemployment. Perhaps it’s valid for reporters Jeannine Aversa and Christopher Rugaber to refer to 6% unemployment as “normal,” if by that they mean “typical non-recessionary” or “long-term average” unemployment. But I couldn’t help but remember that during the Bush 43 and Reagan years, unemployment rates just above and occasionally even below that level were described by wire service reporters and other journalists as “persistent unemployment” — i.e., decidedly not “normal.” I quickly found several AP and other reports from those eras that confirmed my recall of what is now a demonstrated double standard. Here is the opening sentence from the AP report , followed by the term-redefining paragraph: A second straight month of lackluster hiring by American businesses is sapping strength from the economic rebound. … Unemployment is expected to stay above 9 percent through the midterm elections in November. And the Fed predicts joblessness could still be as high as 7.5 percent two years from now. Normal is considered closer to 6 percent , and economists say it will probably take until the middle of this decade to achieve that. “Closer to 6%” seems to imply that “normal” is really “slightly above” that level.  It’s legitimate to question whether there has really been an economic rebound when people who are looking for work aren’t finding it and so many others have abandoned their quest. The truth is that the number of people reported as working according to the Establishment Survey in yesterday’s Employment Situation Report is lower than it was a year ago , when the recession as normal people define it ended. It’s also worth remembering, assisted by an updated version of the indispensable chart from Innocents Bystanders , that the administration predicted that its stimulus plan would return the economy to the AP’s new “normal” by the first quarter of 2012, three years earlier than “the middle of this decade”: Oops. Here are some previous examples of situations described by the establishment press as “persistent unemployment”: October 7, 2003 — Both an AP story and an item at USA Today on California’s recall election told readers that “Californians face an $8 billion state budget deficit, persistent unemployment and struggling schools.” The Golden State’s unemployment rate in September 2003 was 6.4% . June 13, 2003 — A Reuters report on consumer sentiment relayed that “Consumer sentiment deteriorated sharply in early June, suggesting persistent unemployment is taking its toll on Americans’ expectations for the economy’s future.” The national unemployment rate in May 2003 was 6.1% . April 4, 2004 — A Fox News item to which AP contributed claimed that “there is evidence that persistent unemployment, despite other signs of a recovering economy, is taking its toll on the president’s popularity.” On April 2, the government reported a national unemployment rate of 5.7% . Going back further, in a March 29, 1987 book review at the New York Times (“No Time for Radicals”), Michael Janeway wrote this of author Robert Lekachman: “Under Ronald Reagan, the author writes, no god but that of the marketplace is worshiped, yielding ‘privatization, militarization, persistent unemployment, de-unionization, middle-class shrinkage, and the triumph of plutocracy.’ Mr. Lekachman’s cases in point, when backed by fact and figure, make for an intelligently passionate brief against the Reagan Administration.” Janeway didn’t dispute the factual accuracy of Lekachman’s claim about “persistent unemployment, which at the time was 6.5% . Gosh, who knew that “normal” was only a half-point or less below that of “a mean society”? But what was once “persistent unemployment” is now “normal.” No double standard there (/sarcasm). Oh, wait a minute. Maybe the AP pair is subtly informing us that as long as the Obama administration is in power and Democrats control Congress, “persistent unemployment” will be “normal.” If so, guys, thanks for letting us know. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Read the rest here:
AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

CBS ‘Early Show’ Follows ABC’s Lead, Touts Kagan’s SNL-Worthy Humor

During the ‘Early Wrap’ segment on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith discussed the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan with a panel of media pundits: “The almost unknown, practically under the radar, the Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, before committees this week being funny. She was downright funny.” GQ Magazine’s Washington correspondent Ana Marie Cox agreed with Smith and added: “…a Saturday Night Live skit made live , in part because she looks exactly like Rachel Dratch. And it’s perfect because Al Franken is on the committee. And I kept on watching like waiting for someone to burst into song or Unfrozen Caveman Senator.” Radio host Jane Pratt chimed in: “Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good.” Smith remarked: “Very funny. Sunday night, and Christmas.”          On Wednesday’s Good Morning America on ABC, news reader Juju Chang noted Kagan’s “lively sense of humor” and later asked co-hosts George Stephanopoulos and Elizabeth Vargas “who is going to play her in the SNL skit?” Vargas replied: “I don’t think they could be as funny as Elena Kagan was!” While the Early Show touted Kagan’s comedic performance, neither Good Morning America nor NBC’s Today made any mention of the confirmation hearings on Friday. In addition, none of the evening newscast on Thursday made any mention of Kagan’s final day of testimony. Here is a full transcript of the July 2 Early Show exchange provided by NewsBusters’ Scott Whitlock: 8:20AM HARRY SMITH: The almost unknown, practically under the radar, the Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, before committees this week being funny. She was downright funny.  MO ROCCA: Last Justice Standing. [All laugh] ANA MARIE COX: American justice. It’s funny. I actually thought she was funny, too.  SMITH: Right.  COX: I have to say, watching it immediately, I don’t know if I’m allowed to say SNL, but Saturday Night Live, a Saturday Night Live skit made live, in part because she looks exactly like Rachel Dratch. And it’s perfect because Al Franken is on the committee. And I kept on watching like waiting for someone to burst into song or Unfrozen Caveman Senator. I mean- JANE PRATT: Yeah. Right. I haven’t been able to watch it just because I feel like- like, I see Al Franken looking like he’s kind of falling asleep and I’m like, it makes me feel like I’m going to fall asleep and then I wanted to crack a joke. Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good. SMITH: Very funny. Sunday night, and Christmas. COX: She took the fifth on Team Edward vs. Team Jacob, which all women do. [They move on to other topics.]

See the rest here:
CBS ‘Early Show’ Follows ABC’s Lead, Touts Kagan’s SNL-Worthy Humor

Today Show Marks One Year Anniversary of Palin’s Decision to ‘Cash In’

To mark the one year anniversary of Sarah Palin stepping down from her duties as governor of Alaska, NBC’s Norah O’Donnell, on Friday’s Today show, recounted for viewers what the former vice presidential candidate is doing, namely “cashing in.” Accompanied by a “cha-ching” sound effect O’Donnell ran down Palin’s various TV and book deals. And while O’Donnell also noted Palin has been very effective stumping for GOP candidates in the primaries she was careful to note that the “polarizing” Palin had “limits to her appeal,” as she cited an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll saying 52 percent view her political endorsements negatively. Along with the poll and TV and book deals, O’Donnell also included “her teenage daughter’s tumultuous relationship with Levi Johnston,” and “her rage” at author Joe McGinnis “who’s moved directly next door to her Wasilla home ” as negatives. How exactly Palin’s “rage” at a writer/stalker moving next door to her family home could be seen as a limit to her appeal wasn’t fully explained. The following is the full segment as it was aired on the July 2 Today show: MATT LAUER: It was a year ago tomorrow that Sarah Palin made the surprise announcement that she was resigning as the governor of Alaska. And a lot has changed in the past 12 months. NBC’s Norah O’Donnell has details on that. Norah, good morning. [On screen headline: “‘Going Rogue’ Sarah Palin, One Year After Resigning As Governor”] NORAH O’DONNELL: A lot has changed. You know she may be the most controversial and polarizing figure in politics today, but she’s also helped elect some new stars in the Republican Party, while at the same time becoming a multi-millionaire. One year ago Sarah Palin shocked everyone, announcing she would resign as governor of Alaska with 18 months still left on her term. SARAH PALIN: It would be apathetic to just kind of hunker down and go with the flow. We’re fishermen. We know that only dead fish go with the flow. PAT BUCHANAN: If Sarah Palin was thinking about being President of the United States, she’s taking a real step backward. O’DONNELL: But if anything, Palin has surged forward. More visible- JAY LENO: Thanks for coming! How are you doing? O’DONNELL: And possibly more influential than ever. PALIN: How is that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya? O’DONNELL: Especially in recent Republican primaries, backing Tea Party candidates across the country and women like South Carolina’s Nikki Haley. PALIN: Nikki had the backbone to vote against taking the Obama stimulus money. O’DONNELL: Her power is fueled but her political action committee with a deep war chest and a vast army of Facebook and Twitter followers. ANNE KORNBLUT, THE WASHINGTON POST: She does still have a very loud megaphone when she tweets, when she’s on Facebook. She still has the power to affect a policy debate when she wants to. O’DONNELL: But there may be limits to her appeal. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 52 percent see her political endorsements negatively. And for Sarah Palin, the family dramas that captivated America during the campaign have continued. There’s her teenage daughter’s tumultuous relationship with Levi Johnston. PALIN: I hear he goes by the name Ricky Hollywood now. O’DONNELL: Her rage at an author who’s moved directly next door to her Wasilla home, where he’s writing a book about her. JOE MCGINNISS: She has pushed a button and unleashed the hounds of hell and now we’re out there slavering and barking and growling. O’DONNELL OVER “CHA-CHING” SOUND EFFECT: The national fascination with the Palins has not abated and Sarah Palin is cashing in, going from $125,000 a year to an estimated $12 million. There’s her blockbuster bestseller Going Rogue, on that deal, $7 million. Her own TV show on TLC, on that deal, $2 million. And an exclusive contract with Fox News channel, $1 million. And as for her speeches, she makes as much as $100,000 a pop and even those aren’t without controversy. PALIN: Got my water? Do I have my straws? I want my straws. And I want them bent, please. Thank you. At least that’s what I read in some of the lame stream media outlets, is that I was demanding straws. O’DONNELL: Well her next project is a new book called America By Heart. It’s due in November and she is also expected to be out there again on another book tour, Matt. And the crowds come out for her. LAUER: Oh and we continue to talk about her. There’s no question about it. Norah, thanks very much. O’DONNELL: You’re welcome. LAUER: Good to see you.

Continued here:
Today Show Marks One Year Anniversary of Palin’s Decision to ‘Cash In’

Norah Specifies What Kind Of Butts Boehner Likes

The fall-out from Lazy-Gate continues.  After rolling a clip of John Boehner rebutting Joe Scarborough’s assertion that the GOP House leader is lazy, Norah O’Donnell got into the act, with some [presumably] unintentional humor. Seconding Scarborough’s suggestion that Boehner is known to hang out in bars, O’Donnell declared on today’s Morning Joe that: “There’s been a reputation that John Boehner likes his butts and he likes his booze.” Realizing that her words lent themselves to more than one interpretation, Norah clarified . . . O’DONNELL: Meaning cigarette butts. Which in turn provoked a big round of belly-laughs on the Morning Joe set.

See the original post here:
Norah Specifies What Kind Of Butts Boehner Likes

MSNBC’s Ratigan: American’s Don’t ‘Give A Damn’ About Iraq and Afghan Wars; Calls for Draft

On Thursday’s The Dylan Ratigan Show, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan went after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and complained about the lack opposition to the conflicts: “Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war?… there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares.” His solution to the supposed apathy? A draft. Ratigan began his rant by describing the financial and human toll of the wars. He particularly highlighted “the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed.” He argued: “We might even be creating more terrorists….being there may be doing more harm than good.” On his May 13 program , Ratigan condemned the U.S. military for “dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly.” Describing the limited number of Americans who have loved ones on the front lines, Ratigan proclaimed: “…it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars.” Ratigan then proposed: “…we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft.” He further declared: “Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there…” After a discussing the topic with a panel of military experts, Ratigan admitted: “I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic.” Even so, he concluded: “…the solution is still fairly simple….Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there….that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen.” An on-screen graphic read: “Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft.” Here is transcript of the July 1 segment: 4:30PM DYLAN RATIGAN: Well, day four in our ‘Fix It Week’ garage. And today we tackle a true matter of life and death in this country, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, already America’s longest war. The other, unfortunately, not far behind, long and costly. $731 billion spent so far in Iraq. $280 billion in our efforts in Afghanistan with no clear end in sight at the end of the deadliest month in the history of the war. The cost in American lives 4,396 soldiers dead in Iraq. 1,125 killed in Afghanistan. And then there are the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed. There are two main problems with what we’re doing overseas, as I see it, and why we’re not doing it well. The first, we have no political will to shift from a strategy that has been repeating itself for years with no apparent end in sight. And two, there may not even be an honest understanding of our enemy and what a modern day insurgent war strategy is, let alone, how to actually fight an effective counterinsurgency. We all know about the heroin, the bribery, the rampant political corruption. But what about our overall strategy? And what we’re doing? We might even be creating more terrorists. Our leaders may not even understand the insurgency that they are fighting against. Think about how difficult it would be to launch a so-called counterinsurgency strategy if you haven’t been able to be truly honest about how a modern day insurgency works. Very few people, unrelated, using the internet and communications to disrupt society. Bottom line, us being there may be doing more harm than good. So why isn’t that conversation taking place in our Congress and in our homes? Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war? Well, quite simply, like the cheap price of oil, there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares. They may say they care. But the politicians know, there’s no – the phone’s not ringing. No one really is expressing themselves. In fact, the number of active duty troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is at the lowest level since World War II. Which means the percentage of us that are exposed to the realties of war in this country, that we’ve been fighting for a decade, is the smallest it has ever been. Why is that? Well, more than a third of our soldiers have been sent back to the front lines multiple times. Some of the same soldiers sent back five and six times to the same war. Why is that? Well, it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars. It means that the fewest number of Americans are truly feeling the brunt of our wars. Meanwhile, those who are feeling it, feel it harder than any troops in American history. I think we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft. Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there and come up with a different way to deal with insurgent warfare in the 21st century. [PANEL DISCUSSION WITH MILITARY EXPERTS] RATIGAN: I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic. It’s why I asked these gentlemen to join me and benefit from it. But politically, for me, the solution is still fairly simple. I don’t see how, after all these years and all this time, we can continue these types of strategies without an either ‘get out’ or ‘get in’ strategy. Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there. [ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: The Fix Solution: Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft] And explaining, not emotionally, but from a policy standpoint, why that is. And that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen. Either way, you have to let your politicians know how you feel. We, the people are critical to this process. Dylan.MSNBC.com has contact information for each and every member of Congress. Remember, you can get mad – or you don’t get mad, I should say, if you don’t get involved. This is a classic example.

The rest is here:
MSNBC’s Ratigan: American’s Don’t ‘Give A Damn’ About Iraq and Afghan Wars; Calls for Draft

Pro-Life Activists vs. Jimmy Kimmel Thugs

The youth pro-life activist group

Here is the original post:
Pro-Life Activists vs. Jimmy Kimmel Thugs

Baltimore Appoints a Food Czar

Image credit: Good.is Baltimore is a set beset by “food deserts”—vast urban areas without access to anything but fast food, snack cakes, bags of chips, and soda. The city is not unique in it’s situation—cities across the country face the same problem—but it is one of the first in the country to make a serious effort to address the problem with the appointment of a food policy directors …. Read the full story on TreeHugger

See the original post here:
Baltimore Appoints a Food Czar

MSNBC’s Witt: ‘I Got Chills’ Listening To Obama Immigration Speech

When it comes to Barack Obama, MSNBC is the network of thrills and chills . . . Chris Matthews famously felt a thrill going up his leg listening to an Obama speech. Now, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt has been similarly moved by Obamian oratory, declaring this morning “I got a few chills” listening to PBO’s “very powerful” speech on immigration. Witt described her sensations to MSNBC DC bureau chief Mark Whitaker. ALEX WITT: You know, Mark, I gotta say I got a few chills listening to him there. It was very powerful. But it was also pretty heavy on detail and direction.

Originally posted here:
MSNBC’s Witt: ‘I Got Chills’ Listening To Obama Immigration Speech